Adam Kokesh Body Slammed for Dancing at Jefferson Memorial

This is evidence that you can't reason with everyone even with court cases and legal precedence or constitutional law, they would rather give up
those inalienable rights and become enslaved by over 60 million statutes and codes that have been put into place fraudulently over the last 50-75
years as opposed to claiming and taking responsibility for their own lives.

This is evidence that you can't reason with everyone even with court cases and legal precedence or constitutional law, they would rather give up
those inalienable rights and become enslaved by over 60 million statutes and codes that have been put into place fraudulently over the last 50-75
years as opposed to claiming and taking responsibility for their own lives.

As I recently heard one freeman on the land say "Get of the breast"

NO - - I want to live in a peaceful society - - with my rights protected.

What I see is the rights of those who want a peaceful memorial being protected.

I will prove to everyone that I am right, if you can offer proof to the contrary, anywhere it says somewhere where anyone, anywhere, and at anytime
may ignore the principles of the Constitution for the purposed benefit of "law and order" then I will desist however if there is nothing but law
after law and article after article which states that the constitution is the law of the land not statutory law then I hate to tell you but you may
have an opinion but in this matter YOU ARE WRONG!!! Not being judgmental just presenting the facts as they are supposed to be being followed in this
country, in this system of government.

"Where rights as secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them." Miranda v. Ariz.,
384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966)

The Constitution

Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States... shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be
bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding... All executive and judicial officers, both of the
United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution."

There is also a Common Law principle which states that for there to be a crime, there has to be a victim (corpus delecti). In the absence of a victim
there can be no crime.

There is also no mention in the Constitution of the phantoms some judges use as justifications for "interpreting" the Constitition: "Public
Safety," "Public Interest," or "Public Policy." In 1968, in Columbia University's Charpentier Lectures, Justice Hugo Black said:

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to
judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice. I have no fear of constitutional amendments properly adopted, but I do fear the rewriting of
the Constitution by judges under the guise of interpretation."

"What spurs men on to achievement is the deep urge to be rid of the commands once laid on them." - from "Wake Up America! - Obedience, Punishment,
and Power'

THE WEAKEST ARGUMENT FOR GOVERNMENT

If we don't have government there will be chaos, disorder, crime, poverty, illiteracy, homelessness, drug abuse, pollution, etc, etc.

Answer 1: How do you know? Answer 2: Such a list almost always consists of problems we already suffer from - in other words, if we have government
there will be chaos, disorder, crime, poverty, illiteracy, homelessness, drug abuse, pollution, etc, etc.

The people who call themselves "government" need such problems in order to justify their jobs. It is in their interest to create such problems and
make them worse. The worse the problems, the bigger the bureaucratic empires they create, the more money they get, the more power they obtain, the
more people they control.

The bigger the government, the greater the problems. A politician like Bush may say that he will reduce government and lower taxes because he thinks
it will help him get re-elected. In practice Bush has greatly increased his own bureaucratic empire. His administration has expanded government
regulation with abandon. He promised, "Read my lips, no new taxes," and then raised taxes. Under Bush, deficit spending has ballooned out of
control.

PROBLEMS ARE SOLVED BY PEOPLE, NOT BY GOVERNMENTS.

Once you realize that governments consist of people, and that whatever is being done is done by individual human beings - even though they may use
machines and equipment - then it becomes embarrassingly obvious that only people can solve problems. The entire notion that government can or should
do anything becomes quite absurd.

In their book Breakthrough Thinking, Gerald Nadler and Shozo Hibino write that "an organization, as a collective body, can't approach a problem."
They have a section on "political and governmental horrors." They indicate that politics and government "are the graveyards of misbegotten problem
solving." Politicians and bureaucrats have three basic types of "solutions":

Pass a law.
Throw money at the problem.
Appoint a committee to study the problem.
In terms of problem-solving methodology, all three types are at best inefficient.

I would go further and suggest that as soon as people call themselves "government," there is a considerable probability that they acquire some kind
of "magical power in reverse" - they somehow become less able to solve problems. Nadler and Hibino say that, "Government is operated mainly by
bureaucrats, and bureaucrats' classic criterion in decision making is not fulfillment of project purposes but protection of their jobs."

Some people say government is a fecal alchemist - everything they touch turns into feces. ----- Also from "Wake Up America!"

Amendment I
FREEDOM OF RELIGION, SPEECH, AND THE PRESS; RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY AND PETITION

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press, or the right of the people peacefully to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment XIV
GUARANTEE OF PROTECTION TO ALL CITIZENS (1868)

... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws...

Not a huge fan of 14th because it says privileges and not rights but you get the point!

"It [The U.S. Constitution] must be interpreted in the light of Common Law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers
of the Constitution. The language of the Constitution could not be understood without reference to the Common Law." U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.
649, 18 S. Ct. 456.

The U.S. adopted the Common Laws of England with the Constitution. Coldwell v. Hill, 176 S.E. 383 (1934).

In contrast, legislated or statutory law - like the laws of Congress - are written mostly by attorneys to further their own self-interest or to favor
special-interest groups with big bucks - exactly as Thomas Jefferson predicted in 1821.

It is also mentioned in the Constitution already that no one may exercise their rights and trample on yours at the same time. I understand your
wanting your rights protected but they already are without getting statutes involved and mandating NO DANCE, NO DEMONSTRATION etc......if they were
there with say boom boxes and an unsavory element was present that was disturbing your peace or your happiness at enjoying the monument then the
police would then have every right to do what they did. But as it sits how it was done and then how the police responded to it and the creation of a
statute to regulate this is unnecessary and in my humble opinion WRONG, but it's wrong for me, not for everyone.

I certainly respect your position because it is your RIGHT to have it even if I don't agree.

Right and Wrong are only a matter of perspective and I can see yours however I can also that it seems to stem from a desire to be protected and wish
for security etc.....and I don't need that, I have already been exposed to an unsavory element and robbed and held at gunpoint for a half an hour and
I still don't need it, I will protect myself and keep my rights at the same time not peddle them away for a false sense of security which is just a
blanket hiding slavery underneath.

Btw Annee this is just a discussion to me, mind you one I am passionate about, but it's just a discussion. I mean no harm or foul, I respect your
right to have your views and to defend them as you have. Was just letting you know I wasn't really getting angry or seriously emotionally entangled
in this to the point of something becoming personal.

First off, to those who claim that "dancing" or moving about in a unusual fashion is grounds for arrest because it distracts those who are visiting
for other reasons...

- Why aren't people who choose to use their obnoxious gadgets 24/7, no matter where they are, or who they are disturbing, be arrested??? I don't go
to public places to hear loud, ridiculous conversations about whether Lady Gaga's new duct tape underpants are available online, or if Snooky forgot
to tan before she did her laundry, or any other stupid thing that I'm subjected to no matter where I go anymore, or A-holes who bump into me while
they're texting, and can't be bothered to look up and apologize...But yet, they are allowed to ruin my experiences, as long as they are too busy to
cause a commotion! With all the worry about America being the "fattest country", you would think dancing would be encouraged!!! I would much rather
see people having fun, then see them so absorbed in their own pathetic lives that they don't even appreciate the world around them.

Second, to those who believe that citizens cannot dance in a "memorial" or other "restricted" area...

- Who's F'ing taxes are paying for those buildings to be open???
- Why is it that a memorial that is supposed to remind us of our "freedom" and "justice" promotes just the opposite???

Last, to those who believe that "causing scenes" is the wrong way to deal with injustice...

- If things weren't so f'd up...there would be no scene to start!
- Even if the dancing was intended to provoke the police, we need to question why the simple act of dancing can produce these results...How long until
the time comes when I'm arrested for frowning at a cop, and people will lecture me about "disturbing the peace", and be told that " I should have
known better" and "I asked for it, because I knew it was against the law"...are you freaking serious??? Just because a bunch of elitist Ameritards
formed a group and decided that they have supreme reign over me, does that mean I should blindly follow them and keep my mouth shut unless spoken to?
-There should be an actual threat to citizens in order for the police to use force against the very people they are supposed to protect...but that's
just psychobabble about some crazy fantasy world I wish i lived in...

- and, hey, at least no one took a s*** in the Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool, yet...

That speech is brilliant. I listen to that speech often. Thanks for posting it. It is relevant, I support IVAW, same as I support all my brothers that
came home from vietnam. I am a bit young, but I grew up being trained and hanging with nam vets. A lot of them joined hells angels when they got back,
kind of hard to get drafted to the jungle, than come home and be normal.

I am sorry that he didn't win his run, he deserved to. There is always next time.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.